[2025:RJ-JP:30729] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14600/2013 Bhonrya son of Late Prahlad, resident of Sahar, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Rajasthan) since deceased through his legal representatives:- 1. Smt. Indra widow of Late Bhonrya, 2. Pooja Daughter of Late Bhonrya, 3. Suman daughter of Late Bhonrya, 4. Rahul son of Late Bhonrya, 5. Santosh daughter of Late Bhonrya, Nos. 3 to 5 all are minor through their natural guardian their mother Smt. Indra widow of Late Bhonrya, all resident of Sahar, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Board of Revenue, Rajasthan Ajmer. 2. The Revenue Appellate Authority, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur. 3. The Advisory Committee through its President, Sub Divisional Officer, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan), Land Holder. 4. The Land Holder, through Tehsildar, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli. 5. Bhorya son of Shankar, resident of Sahar, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma & Ms. Chanchal for Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achintya Kaushik Ms. Gunjan Chawla for Mr. Neeraj Batra, GC JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/08/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:30729] (2 of 4) [CW-14600/2013] 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Board of Revenue (for short “the Board”) by which the appeal preferred by the respondents against the order dated 13.03.2007 passed by Revenue Appellate Authority (for short “RAA”) has been allowed and the order dated 13.03.2007 passed by RAA has been quashed and set-aside. 2. By passing the order dated 13.03.2007, the RAA allowed the appeal submitted by the father of the petitioner and mutation entries made in favour of the respondents were quashed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after sealing proceedings, the subject land was allotted by the Gram Panchayat Moruchhi in its meeting dated 28.12.1975 to four different persons namely; Bhonrya s/o Dev Bux Bairwa, Gannu s/o Ghudiyya, Chandra s/o Manglya and Prahlad s/o Dev Bux. Learned counsel submits that Prahlad is the grand-father of the petitioners and father of the Bhonrya. Learned counsel submits that inspite of above, the same very land was allotted to the respondents by the order of Tehsildar on 17.06.1976 and the aforesaid allotment made in favour of the respondents was assailed by father of the petitioner, i.e., Bhonrya s/o Prahlad by way of filing an appeal before the RAA and the same was allowed vide order dated 13.03.2007 and the allotment order dated 17.06.1976 made in favour of the respondents was quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel submits that aforesaid order of RAA dated 13.03.2007 was assailed by the respondents by way of filing an appeal before the Board and during pendency of the said appeal, the father of the petitioners, i.e., Bhonrya s/o Prahlad expired on 06.11.2009 [2025:RJ-JP:30729] (3 of 4) [CW-14600/2013] and without substituting his legal representatives, i.e., the petitioners on the record, the appeal was allowed by the Board vide impugned judgment dated 06.09.2012. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid impugned judgment has been passed against the dead person and the same is nullity in the eye of law, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the said Bhonrya s/o Prahlad filed a suit for declaration, correction and injunction against the respondents before the Civil Court, but the same suit was rejected in default on 15.01.2003. Learned counsel submits that even after cancellation of allotment of the respondents, the property would be vested with the State, hence, deceased Bhonrya s/o Prahlad was not having concern whatsoever with the subject land and all these facts were well appreciated by the Board while passing impugned judgment dated 06.09.2012 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.03.2007 passed by RAA. Learned counsel submits that, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Learned counsel for the State-respondent supports the contentions raised by learned counsel for the private respondents. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the allotment order dated 17.06.1976 made in favour of the respondent, an appeal was preferred by the Bhonrya s/o Prahlad, i.e., the father of the petitioner under Section 75 of [2025:RJ-JP:30729] (4 of 4) [CW-14600/2013] the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short “the Act of 1956”) and the said appeal was allowed by RAA vide judgment dated 13.03.2007. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Board and during pendency of the said appeal, the appellant-Bhonrya s/o Prahlad expired on 06.11.2009, but without substituting his legal representatives, i.e., the petitioners on the record, the appeal has been allowed vide impugned judgment dated 06.09.2012. 9. The aforesaid order has been passed against the dead person, who was the sole respondent in the appeal submitted by the respondents herein. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, no orders can be passed against the dead person, unless his legal representatives are taken on record. 11. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Board. The impugned order dated 06.09.2012 stands quashed and set-aside. In case, any application for substitution of legal representatives under the provisions of Order 22 CPC is submitted by the petitioners before the Board, the same would be decided strictly in accordance with law. 12. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/35